http://www.cinemablend.com/television/Canada-Unbundling-TV-Here-What-Looks-Like-108197.html
will be interesting to see how it works out.
will be interesting to see how it works out.
OT: Canada unbundling TV...
- Thread starter kikdakan
- Start date
It seems like some of the best content creators have already gone to Netflix and Amazon to do shows for streaming. A lot of the channels need to die. They wouldn't make it on their own, but by forcing subscribers to get a bunch of channels they don't want along with the ones they stay afloat.
There's only so much writing talent out there, I find the majority of shows unwatchable.
There's only so much writing talent out there, I find the majority of shows unwatchable.
I have wanted this for a long time and hopefully will end up in the USA. 200+ channels that don't appeal to me, and maybe 20 channels (including the major networks) that I would actually pay for if given the opportunity.
Please, Please, Please make this happen in the US. This would make so much sense and would force some of these channels to be much more competitive in their programming.
They'll probably raise the price of individual channels to rediculous rates.
I learned a lot about this in the past 5 years when I started working for a family owned cable company. This could be completely different for the mega cable co's. (comcast/cox/warner/charter/etc). The small cable companies would absolutely LOVE to offer a la carte channels to customers but are not allowed to by contract with the broadcasters. The big issue is that 6 companies own about 90% of the channels out there and are making more channels all the time. Most of them are crap and watched by an extremely low number of people. The problem is that we cannot show the good channels/shows if we don't take the crap along with it. Hopefully the unbundling in Canada is successful.
http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6
http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6
I think sharing of mobile accounts will do more to drive cable pricing reform than anything that happens in Canada. I have not done so, but I'm pretty sure I could farm out my login and password to five or six neighbors and split up my cable bill accordingly. That seems to be happening a lot, because people just aren't willing to pay an excessive bill for way more channels than they can ever watch.
Please note that I'm not trying to start a debate about mobile account sharing, nor am I criticizing anyone who does it. But I think it is driving much of the cord-cutting trend. Perhaps "cord-splitting" would be a more accurate term.
Please note that I'm not trying to start a debate about mobile account sharing, nor am I criticizing anyone who does it. But I think it is driving much of the cord-cutting trend. Perhaps "cord-splitting" would be a more accurate term.
Only if you and your neighbors aren't using it at the same time. Most accounts limit concurrent users just like Netflix does. You can have X number of people logged in at once and any additional users can't log it.
By that same token, what's stopping all of us from running a coax or a Cat5 line over to the neighbor's house and splitting the cost that way? And yet we don't.
The real game changer IMO is when Netflix and Amazon fired the shot on original content. That was the only thing networks had over them, you had to wait for somebody else's work to come to streaming much later. Well, not any more.
Interesting graphic below. The tide is shifting, but not so dramatically that it's just not worth it to be a cable company. That looks like an eye-popping graphic until you realize it's zoomed in to look at only 4%.
What they'll do is just raise your internet rates to compensate, because guess what? All the ISPs are TV providers.
I'm sure that's the case, Beav, but what is the "X" in X number of people? I've logged in on 3 devices at the same time - not at home but on public WiFi - just to see if they all work, and they did. Maybe if I had gone any higher than that, it would not work.
Comcast does stop actual, physical line-sharing by requiring a cable box, even for its most basic service. That sort of makes me laugh, given how easy it is to share the service through a mobile account.
Comcast does stop actual, physical line-sharing by requiring a cable box, even for its most basic service. That sort of makes me laugh, given how easy it is to share the service through a mobile account.
It's possible they don't have a limit on it, but I'd be very surprised. 3 isn't necessarily a lot, if you consider that there are plenty of families with 4+ people living under the same roof, the company may not bat an eye at 3 concurrent users. Especially given this graph:
TV providers are supposed to roll out their "skinny" basic $25 packages by tomorrow. Our largest provider, Bell, came out with their version a couple of days early. It includes 10 French language channels that most of the country won't watch, a parliamentary channel, a weather channel, and multicultural channels. Of 26 channels included, 6 might be considered network/non-fringe. US networks are not included. Additional channels are a gouge. Expect people to be supremely pissed off. It will end up cheaper to keep the smorgasbord of crap we already have than to go a la carte.
FWIW, my provider in Montreal has had the a la carte thingy for several years now. I'm not much of a tv watcher and don't "need" many channels, but by the time I added in the few that I wanted above the basic offering I wasn't saving much; I would have been better off just getting their 2nd tier package.
FWIW, my provider in Montreal has had the a la carte thingy for several years now. I'm not much of a tv watcher and don't "need" many channels, but by the time I added in the few that I wanted above the basic offering I wasn't saving much; I would have been better off just getting their 2nd tier package.
